MRC All In A Tizzy Over George Stephanopoulous [UPDATED BELOW]

MRC Watch Dept. - Thursday, Politico reported that George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC's This Week and Good Morning America, "has given $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, charitable contributions that he did not publicly disclose while reporting on the Clintons or their nonprofit organization, the On Media blog has learned."

Contrary to the breathless tone and dark insinuation, there wasn't much to "learn" about this -- Stephanopoulous, who is a big contributor to various charities, didn't disclose his donations on the air but he's listed as a donor on the Clinton Foundation's website. Stephanopoulous gave a statement to Politico:

"'I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply,' he said. 'I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.'"

ABC issued a statement echoing this and standing by their man. Nevertheless, this non-revelation has set off  an absolute feeding frenzy at the Media Research Center, with new articles slamming Stephanopoulous seeming to turn up every few minutes. In April, Stephanopoulous had questioned Peter Schweizer, the ethically challenged author of "Clinton Cash," about his partisan connections; the MRC writers have insisted the newsman's failure to disclose his charitable donations at that time constitutes some dire and and unforgivable conflict of interest. In a September interview with Bill Clinton, his former boss, Stephanopoulous had touted the work of the Foundation -- this was resurrected and treated as if it was some sort of revelation. The fact that the network evening newscasts ignored the story was scandalized. Brent Bozell, the perpetually unhinged head of the MRC, demanded that ABC remove Stephanopoulous from any coverage of the coming presidential election.[1][ By the time Kyle Drennen highlighted Peter Schweizer's charge that Stephanopoulous was guilt of a "massive breach of ethical standards," it was clear the matter had gone deep into Bizarro World.

It was left to Joanthan Chait, writing in New York magazine, to ask the most obvious question: so what? To the accusations of conflict of interest, he writes "donating money to a charitable foundation is not an interest." Chait has been critical of the Clintons' handling of apparent conflicts of interest regarding the Foundation "but none of those problems reflects poorly on Stephanopoulous":

"In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what. The Clinton Foundation has taken on nefarious connotations owing to conflict-of-interest problems that don’t implicate Stephanopoulos. But it is, after all, a charity. It used to have non-partisan overtones.In the heat of the 2012 election, Mitt Romney spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative. News Corporation Foundation and Donald Trump, for goodness sake, donated to it.

"Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent persuasive... what his critics have yet to produce is a coherent case against him."

This morning, the MRC's Tom Johnson, who didn't even try to counter Chait's reasoning, tried to scandalize his comments.

All this self-righteous fuming by the MRC writers against conflicts of interest can't help but bring to mind some of the MRC's own, such as the fact that they've spent years pimping Big Oil propaganda on everything from increased drilling to climate change to, most recently, complaining that oil barons are portrayed in an unflattering way by the media without ever once disclosing in their articles that they are, in part, financed by Big Oil. The MRC writers are of one voice in insisting Stephanopoulous should face sanction for failing to disclose his Clinton Foundation donations when interviewing Peter Schweizer, but Scott Whitlock once (falsely) complained that ABC News had failed to disclose the identify an environmental activist who works on climate change issues while -- like every other MRC writer -- never disclosing Big Oil's support for his employer. These are much more serious than anything even hinted against Stephanopoulous and unlike Stephanopoulous, the MRC has never addressed these matters or even acknowledged them.

--j.

---

[1] One of the more hilarious aspects of that demand is that ABC's This Week, under Stephanopoulous, has been a national showcase for conservatives and Republican guests. Back in 2006, Media Matters conducted a comprehensive survey of the guest-lists of the major networks' Sunday news shows for an eight-year period. For the last three of those years -- 2002-2005 -- Stephanopoulous had been the host of This Week and in all three, Republican/conservative guests outnumbered liberal/Democratic guests. Averaging about a 60/40 split each year, it wasn't even close. This Week had been dominated by the right well before Stephanopoulous but under his stewardship, this domination increased to its highest point. In 2007, Media Matters followed up, examining the guest-lists for 2006. Once again, Republicans/conservative guests dominated, not only for the overall year on This Week but for 9 of its 12 months. In 2012, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting went through the guest-lists of the Sunday shows for an 8-month period; the same results.

It would seem, at first blush, that the MRC, so relentlessly attacking Stephanopoulous, may be trying to kill what is, for them, a goose that lays golden eggs. But as that first Media Matters survey made clear, conservatives and Republicans had been the predominant voices on the Sunday shows, including This Week, for years before Stephanopoulous came along. This is a longstanding pattern that is likely to continue even if he was to leave, which is very unlikely anyway.


UPDATE (15 May) - Geoffrey Dickens has just highlighted Geraldo Rivera's comments on today's Fox & Friends that, as Dickens' headline puts it, "ABC Fired Me for Just a $200 Political Donation Back in ‘85." Someone -- perhaps a smarter liberal friend -- will have to explain to Dickens that political contributions, which big media companies typically bar their employees from making, aren't the same as charitable donations.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog devoted to a critique of tizzies by the Media Research Center.]

Houck A Babe-in-the-Woods On Abortion Ban Blackout

MRC Watch Dept. - Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the "Pain-Capable Uborn Child Protection Act," which bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the premise that fetuses can, by that stage of development, feel pain. It's retread legislation that's been kicked around congress before. Passed on a near-party-line vote, it now moves to the Senate, where it will die.

Over at Newsbusters, Curtis Houck is, again, a babe-in-the-woods, complaining that the major network evening newscasts "showed no interest in covering the news" of the bill and left its passage entirely unreported.

The premise of the bill, that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, is, for all intents and purposes, medically baseless. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that "pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester." That's the conclusion of a survey of the medical literature on the subject conducted by Dr. Mark Rosen and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In 2013, the New York Times talked to Rosen and summarized the findings in his article:

"It concluded that fetal pain was unlikely before the third trimester, which begins at about 27 weeks. The report said pain sensation required neural connections into the cortex. The cortex begins emerging around the 23rd week, is not functionally developed until the 26th or later, and continues developing after birth, Dr. Rosen said."

The Times continued:

"In 2010, another large review, by a diverse panel appointed by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said 'most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception' so 'the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior' to 24 weeks.

"In 2012, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed this reasoning, saying studies cited by fetal-pain law supporters were not persuasive 'when weighed together with other available information.'"

The Times quoted researchers whose work and theories had been used by advocates of "fetal pain" laws -- one said neurological research had changed his mind on the subject, another that his research had only "marginal bearing" on fetal pain. Another, whose theories are marginal, seemed to regret that his work had become entangled in the abortion matter.

Only about 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. Late abortions tend to be a consequence of extreme medical problems.

[Disclosure: a very dear friend of mine once faced a pregnancy that rapidly turned into a major crisis -- legislation like that just passed by the House puts the government between women and medical care in a way that is extremely dangerous and irresponsible. It nearly killed the lady in question.]

In short, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" is legislation that wouldn't withstand public scrutiny. Curtis Houck complains about the evening newscasts ignoring the House bill but if it wasn't being considered under the cover of that kind of press blackout, it's unlikely it would ever be allowed to pass. Alexandria Boguhn at Media Matters has a much clearer view of this matter. Houck whines about the indifference of the press now and indignantly compares it to how the legislation was covered four months ago:

"Not surprisingly, when the legislation was originally put before Congress on January 22 and pulled due to opposition from female Republicans, the CBS Evening News was all too pleased to promote the 'unforced error' by the GOP and how it had 'stumbled' on the issue in the past."

Boguhn at Media Matters puts that CBS segment in its proper context:

"According to a Media Matters review of ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS' nightly news programs since January 1, ABC's World News Tonight and NBC's Nightly News have completely ignored the legislation, while CBS Evening News ran one segment highlighting the GOP proposal on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. PBS' Newshour devoted four segments to the legislation this year, and was the only network to cover the House's passage of the latest abortion ban.

"The virtual silence of the broadcast evening news comes amid an unprecedented push by Republicans at both the national and state level to restrict women's constitutional right to abortion. An April 2 report from the Guttmacher Institute found that the first few months of 2015 have seen 332 provisions to restrict access to abortion introduced in the legislatures of nearly every state."

This kind of unsupportable legislation (and the extremism that fuels it)[1] thrives in darkness. A "liberal media" wouldn't allow that.

--j.

---

[1] The author of this legislation is Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a birther who claimed Muslims were using congressional pages to spy on congress. He's called Obama an "enemy of humanity" who has an "ideological commitment" to "weaken America." The sort of depressingly common right-wing fringe crackpot who can only wield any influence because the press declines to scandalize his antics.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that critiques dumb things said by those at the Media Research Center.]

Houck Cluelessly Wanders Into Trans-Pacific Partnership Coverage

MRC Watch Dept. - On Tuesday, the Senate considered a motion to open debate on extending to the Obama administration "fast-track" authorization for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the motion received majority support (52-45), but failed to reach the 60-vote threshhold needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. An extraordinary feature of the TPP drama is that Republicans, who have, throughout the entire run of the Obama administration, lock-stepped against virtually anything Obama has proposed merely because he was the one proposing it,[1] are the ones leading the charge for the TPP, while Obama's own party stands largely opposed to it.

The MRC's Curtis Houck has wandered into this dispute like a lost, clueless child:

"On Tuesday, ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News chose to ignore news that Senate Democrats voted to block debate on a series of trade measures pushed by President Barack Obama as part of a push to eventually approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal... While ABC and CBS made no mention of this issue that has divided the Democratic Party, NBC Nightly News did cover the story with a news brief by interim anchor Lester Holt."

Houck notes that PBS and various cable news outlets mentioned these developments at various points throughout the day. He concludes by fantasizing,

"With such disagreement in the Democratic Party, it's worth pointing out that the network newscasts would likely be spending far more time reporting on and analyzing such a split if it involved Senate Republicans voting to block an initiative of a Republican president."

But while Houck frets that the partisan divide isn't getting enough attention, the TPP story has major implications for the MRC's larger project of portraying the press as liberal, implications Houck entirely fails to address. The American liberal base is opposed to the TPP, which, secretively negotiated, was born in the Bush administration in 2008. A "liberal media" can either be with the liberals or with Obama, not both. So how are the major press outlets really handling this matter? Who benefits from a lack of press coverage?

In the summer of 2012, when a draft of a portion of the negotiations were leaked, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen answered that question, describing the agreement as

"a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters. The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent -- grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation. They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more."

The only thing unusual about the sparsity of the coverage offered Tuesday's development in the TPP saga is that this development was mentioned at all. Liberal publications and orgs have been trying to draw attention to this matter for years now, while the big dogs of the corporate press -- those big dogs the MRC insists are so slavishly devoted to heathen liberalism -- have almost entirely buried it.

For years, liberal press critic Project Censored has assembled a list of important stories that received little or no coverage in the previous year; in 2013, the Trans-Pacific Partnership finished at #3. In March 2014, Steve Rendall of liberal media critic Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) noted that

"TPP would seem to be a major story with significant real-world impact. But despite its apparent newsworthiness—and two major leaks, providing grist for reporting and debate—there were no stories about TPP on the three major network news shows in the year following Barack Obama’s 2013 State of the Union mention of the agreement. The same goes for cable channels CNN and Fox News.

"The only thing preventing a total blackout of TPP on national commercial TV was MSNBC, where the Ed Show practically made TPP a feature of the program, offering critical coverage and commentary in 25 segments. TPP was also discussed once on Melissa Harris-Perry (12/14/13), when it was briefly criticized by The Nation's John Nichols."

Shortly after, FAIR launched a petition demanding that the major networks stop their blackout of this story; others have done the same.

It didn't seem to help. In February, liberal press critic Media Matters undertook a study of tv news coverage of the TPP.

"A Media Matters transcript search of the CBS Evening News, ABC's World News Tonight, and NBC's Nightly News from August 1, 2013, through January 31, 2015, found no mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. By contrast, PBS NewsHour mentioned the TPP on during eight broadcasts, most of which were substantive discussions of the trade agreement."

Among the cable news operations, "CNN and Fox News each mentioned the TPP during two broadcasts," while MSNBC was the only outlet to give the matter any real attention -- it was covered in 71 broadcasts, mostly the Ed Show.

On Monday -- three days ago -- Media Matters followed up. From 1 February to 10 May, the network evening newscasts had continued their complete blackout -- not a single mention from any of them. The PBS Newshour had done 6 additional segments on the subject. Among the cable outlets, CNN hadn't offered a single new mention while there had been 10 on Fox News. Again, only MSNBC devoted any notable attention to the matter, covering it in 53 segments.[2]

Print coverage has been pathetic as well. In April 2014, FAIR examined the attention given the TPP by two of the largest papers in the U.S.:

"In the year between Barack Obama’s 2013 and 2014 State of the Union addresses (2/12/13– 1/28/14), the New York Times and Washington Post had a combined total of 18 news reports discussing TPP, featuring 48 sources.

"TPP received a small fraction of the attention the papers devoted to stories of much less import, such as the Benghazi and IRS stories portrayed as scandals by the right—without much of anything scandalous behind them (FAIR Blog, 5/17/13, 6/25/13). Benghazi was mentioned in 618 stories in both papers. Using the search terms 'IRS' and 'conservative'—according to the IRS scandal storyline, the agency singled out conservative groups for harassment—turned up 444 stories.

"In the two papers combined, sources favoring TPP (31) outnumbered those opposing (14) by more than 2-to-1. Three sources were expressly noncommittal. The Post presented an almost 3-to-1 ratio of supporters to opponents (16–6) with one noncommittal source, while the Times featured a nearly 2-to-1 imbalance (15–8) with two noncommittal sources."

While barely covering the story, print outlets have managed to circulate all manner of nonsense about the deal and its critics.

As Wallach wrote, the TPP is a bundle of "policies that could not survive public scrutiny." But while the public wouldn't stand for such things if they were dragged into the light of day, the TPP has powerful supporters, including the big media companies, whose parent entities are lobbying for it. News media inattention can only benefit TPP, which is why liberal activists have raged against it for so long.

This is the environment into which Houck innocently wandered, a landscape wherein, contrary to the most basic premise of everything the MRC does, the concerns of liberals have -- as usual -- been entirely ignored or grossly mistreated by the major press outlets, where any stories about --or even mention of -- TPP on the evening newscasts are, as a rule, non-existent. While TPP's critics have, for years, unsuccessfully tried to draw attention to big and important matters that will affect not only the U.S. bur the world, Houck complains that he didn't get to see Democrats fight one another on the evening news. Cry me a river.

--j.

---

[1] It's impossible to overstate this point. It's so bad that Republicans legislators have made a regular practice of walking away from even proposals they, themselves, had written as soon as Obama endorses the measures.

[2] In its follow-up, Media Matters inexplicably combined the numbers from its previous survey with the follow-up, offering total numbers for the full 20 months rather than just for the 3 months of the new survey. To get the three-month numbers I've quoted, I simply deducted the previous findings from that combined total.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that, when appropriate, tells Donny at the Media Research Center to shut the fuck up.]

MRCTV Approvingly Highlights Brainless Rant From Fox News Loon

MRC Watch Dept. - Saturday, Monica Sanchez at MRCTV highlighted a brainless rant by Jeanine Pirro about the reaction to last week's shooting at the Muhammad art contest in Texas. Offered as a monologue on Pirro's Fox News series "Justice with Judge Jeanine," the rant is like a highlight reel of the faulty "thinking" the writers of the Media Research Center have offered on this subject throughout the past week.

"Y'know, free speech in America is non-negotiable, no matter what the perceived consequences, no matter the worry about retribution from Islamic extremists. Period. End of the story."

Except for Pirro, that's just the beginning. She offers a little "primer" on the 1st Amendment, explaining how various court rulings have held it prevents government from outlawing the burning of the American flag, the burning of a cross and the protesting of the funerals of dead soldiers by the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Pam Geller's 'draw the prophet' contest in Garland, Texas pales in comparison to those examples but because of her, many in the politically correct class want to rethink free speech because of the sensitivities of some. Like the New York Times editorial board who said '[Blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event] can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.' Now I, for one, am sick and tired of liberal apologists who believe in free speech unless they don't."

The MRC's writers have spent the past week advancing this same Orwellian notion -- that if one criticizes Pamela Geller, one doesn't believe in free speech (or worse, is with the terrorists). The Times editorial Pirro cites -- a piece that was also attacked shortly after its publication by the MRC's Clay Waters -- neither offers nor argues in favor of some sort of "rethink" of free speech. Its position on that matter, which Pirro declined to quote, is unequivocal:

"There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers."

As indicated by the plain words Pirro did quote, the editorial makes the argument that hate-fueled events like the Mohammad art contest are counterproductive. This isn't offered, as Pirro later claims, "to shut us up"; the argument is that such events spread mindless hatred against the adherents of an entire religion, most of whom have no connection to terrorism at all, that it threatens to alienate Muslims for no reason and that it provides fuel to the far-right pro-terror elements. Numerous conservative commentators have made this same point in the past week, many of them on Pirro's own Fox News. Because their views render rather absurd the effort to slam others as "liberals" for saying exactly the same thing, Pirro follows the MRC gang in simply declining to acknowledge their existence, just as she refuses to address the substance of the argument they, like the Times, have advanced, opting instead to misrepresent it as some argument for reworking the 1st Amendment. Though the assertion forms the foundation for nearly everything she says, Pirro fails to cite a single person, "liberal" or otherwise, who is actually arguing for any sort of "rethink" of free speech because of the "sensitivities" of Muslims.

For the Pirros and the MRCs of the world, the sum total of the right of free speech seems to be the right not to criticize Pamela Geller's hate. Except when it doesn't. Later in her rant, Pirro exempts herself from her own rule, saying, "Now I don't agree with what Pam did -- it was probably a dumb move." Exactly the same sentiment she was condemning those "liberals" for offering.

And the longer Pirro raves, the more irrational she becomes:

"Since when are we willing to surrender our constitution to keep peace with those hell-bent on killing us anyway?

Uh, never?

"It's never been more clear. On one side, free speech. On the other, the sharia blasphemy law. Which will prevail? They cannot co-exist."

Since Muslims, who make up only 0.6% of the total U.S. population, are a powerless minority and those among them who would favor the imposition of sharia law a micro-minority of that micro-minority, some -- say, the sane -- would recognize this as a non-issue. But Pirro knows better; that Kenyan Muslim guy in the White House is going to impose it on us on their behalf:

"I have long predicted this administration will cut back our speech if it offends Islam... I don't care if you like Pam Geller, ya' don't like her or what her motives are. She has the right to say whatever she wants... She opened our eyes and teed up the discussion about whether free speech in America survives the pushback from sharia law... For the first time, I'm worried about whether or not the so-called politically correct climate will restrict our free speech in line with sharia requirements."

Is this really what the Media Research Center has come to? Pimping as "Judge Jeanine's must-see fiery opening remarks" the demented fantasies of someone who, but for the existence of Fox News, would more appropriately be filing her monologues from a rubber room in some mental health facility?

--j.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that frowns upon the MRC's loving citation of loons.]

Shepherd Objects to Fascistic Hate Group Being Compared To Nazis

MRC Watch Dept. - On Thursday, Ken Shepherd got all whiny about some comments by MSNBC terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann. Kohlmann "compared the Jewish co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) to the Nazis by way of invoking the Reichstag fire that the Nazis set as in February 1933 as a pretext to seizing power." He quotes Kohlmann from Thursday's Hardball:

"I would say to Geller, look, you have the right to do this. But you also have a responsibility. Freedom of speech is a very serious right and it comes with a responsibility. You have a responsibility to act in a way that is restrained, according to fact. And simply yelling at someone and saying terribly nasty things at someone, look, and then to complain about the fact that someone reacts violently to that, to me, that's like lighting the Reichstag on fire and then complaining that your fingers got singed."

Obviously not a very well-structured analogy but Shepherd's objection was to the comparison of Geller to Nazis and he's on quite dubious ground there. For one, the AFDI's platform is openly fascist, calling for the rolling back of constitutional protections for Muslims as part of a government-led cultural jihad against them. Geller herself has called for everything from a blacklist of Al Jazeera to a ban on the burqa worn by Muslim women. It's also the case that, in the wake of Geller's "Ground Zero mosque" demagoguery, Geller developed extensive support among actual Nazis and white supremacists:

"Geller's Muslim-bashing has resonated with certain conservatives, several of whom, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have come out against the Muslim community center. But Geller’s views are now also finding support from nearly every sector of America’s racist right. This is rather surprising because Geller is Jewish, a fact that is normally enough to dissuade radical rightists from too tight an embrace. Apparently, Geller is a Jew the racist right can love."

That's from an article from the Southern Poverty Law Center that offers copious examples. The SPLC has spent decades fighting these reactionary elements. When its efforts to battle fascistic hate-groups ran afoul of the efforts of the Media Research Center to mainstream various elements of same, the MRC's writers did their best to treat it as some discredited, fringe org, throwing at it the same sort of venom as have the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The SPLC has noted Geller's AFDI is an anti-Muslim hate group, which has subjected the org and any press outlets that cite it to more abuse by the MRC.

Shepherd may not like Nazi comparisons, but Geller's platform speaks for itself and the "white nationalist" right doesn't adore her because of her winning smile.

--j.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that critiquings the Media Research Center's efforts to cover for fascistic hate groups.]

Surrealism Strikes!

MRC Watch Dept. - A Thursday article from Politico notes, "Fox pundits can't decide whether to cheer or jeer Pamela Geller," the organizer of the Muhammad art contest in Texas that, Sunday, was attacked by two Islamist rightists. Throughout the week, there's been a fair amount of criticism in conservative circles of both that contest and of Geller, who co-founded the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an anti-Muslim hate group. Though the writers at the Media Research Center have written rather extensively on the coverage of the shooting and of Geller and her group, they have, as this blog has noted, suppressed this criticism from the right in order to portray elements of the press as liberal for offering the same sort of criticism.[1]

Today, Newsbusters, in response to that Politico piece, finally ran an article that acknowledged the existence of the conservative criticism but coming after a week of these shenanigans, the attempted spin by Melissa Mullins is surreal:

"Apparently, the people at Politico are shocked that Fox News is living up to its 'Fair and Balanced' slogan, claiming that the network personalities '…have seemingly been at odds all week over Pamela Geller.'  Oh my. Two different views – that’s almost unheard of!"

Moments that invoke the word "Orwellian" are, alas, significantly less than "unheard of" when dealing with the MRC.

--j.

---

[1] Thursday, for example, Clay Waters attacked an editorial in the New York Times which had argued that events like the Muhammad art contest "can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel,” but like the rest of the MRC writers, Waters declined to relay to his readers that Fox's top-rated host Bill O’Reilly had offered the same sentiment. So had ultra-right-wing radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, Donald Trump, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue (whose articles are sometimes published by the MRC), and so on -- most of this happening on Fox through the week.

[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog dedicated to a critique of the surreal work of the Media Research Center.]

Clay Muddies Waters on NY Times Rubio Story

MRC Watch Dept. - Most of the items on this blog deal, in one way or another, with the fundamental irrationality of the "media criticism" offered by the Media Research Center. The mailman who flew his gyrocopter into the capitol in an effort to raise awareness about money in politics posed no danger to anyone but the MRC's writers described him as having pulled a reckless stunt that endangered everyone in its path. Days later, Pamela Geller, who endangered everyone around her by holding a Muhammad art contest aimed at poking the hornet's nest of violent right-wing Islamist extremists, is praised by the same writers for standing up for "free speech" (a thing in which Geller doesn't even believe). When the contest was attacked, the MRC gang tried to scandalize every press outlet that reported the controversial nature of the event, even going so far as to object to Geller's group being described as "anti-Muslim," the uncontroversial fact that formed the would-be killers' motive. As noted on this blog, any reporter who tried to leave out every bit of information the MRC wanted suppressed would be unable to relay even the most basic facts of the story. There's no rhyme or reason to any of this. The MRC's overarching charge of a "liberal media" is a phantom and its writers are forced to indulge in whatever surreal distortions, double standards and doublethink are necessary to peddle this fantasy day in and day out to their very conservative audience -- reactionary confirmation bias as commerce.

Today, the New York Times ran an article about Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio and his place in a changing Republican party. It was co-authored by former National Review writer Jonathan Martin, it was quite favorable to Rubio and it appeared on the front page above the fold.

If you think this doesn't leave the advocates of the "liberal media" myth much cause to complain, you haven't met the MRC's Clay Waters. While conceding that the article was "rather positive toward Rubio himself," Waters griped that "the report and the surrounding headlines came down hard on the GOP as an old, stodgy, white party." Martin and co-author Ashley Parker wrote:

Republican voters are overwhelmingly white: The composition of the electorate in almost every contested state during the 2012 party primary was about 90 percent or more non-Hispanic white, according to exit polls.

Waters characterized these uncontroversial facts as "Martin rubbed in the GOP's demographic doom" and continues:

Back in March, Martin played the same theme of stick-in-the-mud Republicans by embracing moderate Jeb Bush, whom he viewed as helpfully lecturing his party that it 'must accept a changing country: that the path to the presidency will be found through appealing to voters who may not look like them.'"

Jeb Bush, the current front-runner in the 2016 Republican presidential race, has become a hate-figure on the far-right solely as a consequence of his refusal to race-bait on the immigration "issue" -- Bush's wife is Hispanic. This single departure from orthodoxy has led to his being denounced as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), a "moderate" and even a "liberal" but by any reasonable estimation, the notion that he's anything other than a very conservative Republican is strictly the domain of reactionary cranks. The GOP's problem with minorities, particularly Latinos, has led to a great deal of conversation within the party and in conservative circles. A faction of the GOP is as yet unwilling to forgo the political benefit that can still be squeezed from inflaming the anxieties and resentments of those who feel there are too many brown people with funny accents walking around and being catered to. As a senator, Rubio himself championed immigration reform only to see it ruthlessly torn to shreds by the right wing of his own party -- he ended up humiliatingly having to back away from the bill he, himself, had drafted.

Waters doesn't pretend as if this inter-party fight hasn't been happening. He doesn't even challenge any of the facts in the piece. His sole objection is that what he calls "the condescending theme of Republicans unprepared for a 'changing country'" -- a very real problem and one being addressed by a former National Review writer but one Waters doesn't want to acknowledge -- is on display in the New York Times.

And that's how the need to relentlessly feed the "liberal media" fairy tale ends up distorting a major propaganda coup for a conservative Republican candidate -- a pro-Rubio article by a sympathetic writer plastered on the front page of the New York Times -- into something bad.

--j.


[This article was written for MRC Watch, a blog that critiques the unfortunate work of the Media Research Center.]